JUDGEMENT

Date :12-03-2024 Heard Ms. Anuradha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the orders dated 14.10.2009,25.03.2009 and 20.12.2008 as contained in Annexures-8,7 and 5 respectively passed by the respondent Nos.2,3 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 05.03.2002 in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF).

The leave of the petitioner has been sanctioned w.e.f.14.10.2007 up to 27.10.2007 in order to arrange the treatment of his wife.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was at his home in District-Pratapgarh, he became seriously ill on 24.10.2007 and his treatment was started in the District Hospital Pratapgarh. Due to his prolonged illness, he could not report on duty on 28.10.2007 on the place on which he was posted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the treatment of the petitioner continued for considerable a long period, due to his condition continued to deteriorate, he underwent treatment to nearby Primary Health Centre, Prithviganj, Pratapgarh from 27.02.2008 to 22.04.2008. When the condition of the petitioner did not improve, then he consulted to a Private Hospital on 23.04.2008 and his treatment was continued up to 09.05.2008. After feeling fit for reporting on duty, he rushed towards his place of posting but he fell down from stairs on Pratapgarh Railway Station causing physical injuries on his chest and he was again admitted to nearby Primary Health Centre and his treatment continued up-to 06.09.2008 and after recovery from his prolonged illness, he reported on duty on 24.11.2008.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the aforesaid period, a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 10.05.2008 by the respondent No.4. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid chargesheet dated 10.05.2008 it suggests that two charges were framed against the petitioner with regard to unauthorized absence from duty and secondly in spite of the direction given by the Disciplinary Authority, he did not undergo treatment in any C.R.P.F. Hospital of Government Hospital. On the basis of the aforesaid chargesheet dated 10.05.2008, the Inquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in absence of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about ex-parte departmental enquiry by way of show cause notice dated 26.11.2008, annexed with the alleged enquiry report dated 20.10.2008. The Inquiry Officer while submitting his report to the disciplinary authority, discussed in detail about the explanation submitted by the petitioner and day to day progress of his treatment but while concluding his report, the Inquiry Officer was found the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and established merely on the basis of suspicion that the petitioner suffers from home sickness and as such his conduct is not in accordance with the standard prescribed for disciplined force.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 26.11.2008 on 07.12.2008 but the respondent No.4, who was Disciplinary Authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service on 20.12.2008. Petitioner has filed the statutory appeal under Regulation 28 of the Rules on 15.01.2009 before the respondent No.3 but the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.3 without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in his appeal, rejected the same vide order dated 25.03.2009. The petitioner has preferred a revision application before the respondent No.